londonwikiaorg-20200216-history
London Wiki talk:Conventions in this wiki
This article can be adapted - and something done for particular categories of topic. Jackiespeel (talk) 23:11, December 2, 2014 (UTC) Pages for individuals It seems that the wiki should not have a page for every individual who ever lived in London. To justify a page, he or she must have done something that attracted public attention in London. Being an MP for a distant electorate, working in London, is not good enough either. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 05:08, August 6, 2015 (UTC) How about 'The subject of the article (person, thing or other) must have a significant involvement with London, rather than merely a passing connection.' - with links being provided to wikis covering MPs and others in Westminster, ships built in London's docks and other passing connections 'as and when they are created.' However there should be some slight leeway for 'topics with minor links to London' which would otherwise not find a home (being too minor for Wikipedia). As I am also involved with Local History wiki - could something be developed for 'orphan articles' there perhaps? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:17, August 6, 2015 (UTC) Different criteria for different classes of things? Roads and other Thoroughfares in London have significant involvement with all of the Londoners who have ever lived or worked or frequently shopped in them. But would you discourage articles about any? Maybe suggest that a thoroughfare should not have an article unless it has been mentioned elsewhere in this wiki (e.g. as a sheriff's residence or the location of a prominent business or building)? People must qualify under a different standard. People who lived all their lives in London would qualify for articles on Familypedia but would, as you say, for this wiki need some significant involvement with London, i.e. coming to the notice of more people than just their friends and classmates. Mention in a newspaper might not even be enough, if it was only for something like an appearance in Court. Bodies of water: how small should a millpond be before it is too small to deserve an article? Do they all have "a significant involvement with London" or at least "minor links to London"? They can't have the same criteria as thoroughfares - no prominent buildings or residences. So we really should work towards specific criteria for different categories. Some categories, such as Bodies of water, already have a line or two at the top of their pages indicating their scope. I think that's good and should be encouraged. People who are the main contributors to a category should feel free to add or vary such criteria, maybe discussing proposed changes on the Category talk pages. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 12:23, August 6, 2015 (UTC) As I said with the roads - some of the items on this wiki were there when I took it on; others get added when material is copied over from Wikipedia etc - so adding links back there may be practical. Another possibility would be to have more lists (and most roads are too obscure for describing on the wiki). If someone has an 'obscure pet interest' my inclination is to discuss and allow if practical; and people do occasionally post genealogical and other questions to the wiki. Jackiespeel (talk) 12:54, August 6, 2015 (UTC) Lists of officeholders by year(s) With date lists - mayors and others - there seem to be several different formats, to some extent carried over from 'the sources where the material was found.' There may be some lists where the originating layout has to be followed; and a few where the nature of the material dictates a particular layout, but there should be some consistency with the rest. So: *1901-2 *1901-02 *1901-1902 *1901-1902 (space then name) *1901-1902: (then name) *1901 (space) - (space) 1902 and *1901-02 AB Smith (first term) *1902-03 AB Smith (second term) or *1901-03 AB Smith (two terms) Which should be adopted? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:04, September 13, 2015 (UTC) :Like this: AB Smith (1901-1902) --Saviour1981 (talk) 10:13, September 13, 2015 (UTC) ::Missed the point of the type of list there, I think. This is for lists of incumbents. I've clarified the heading, i hope. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 10:59, September 13, 2015 (UTC) :"1901-2" risks being confused with "Model number 2 for 1901". I prefer the two-digit second part - but that looks untidy when you cross a century line and have to use all four digits. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 10:59, September 13, 2015 (UTC) :I can't see any value in putting spaces around the hyphen - that confuses it with the use of a hyphen as a dash. (Wikipedia uses an en-dash, which we who have worked in the publishing industry understand but some of us dislike - where's the n-dash on a keyboard?) -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 10:59, September 13, 2015 (UTC) :If you're thinking of breaking out into putting colons after the numbers, you might be better (tidier, if nothing else) to use a simple wikitable. Typing two pipes isn't much harder than typing a colon and a space. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 10:59, September 13, 2015 (UTC) :Any format is good with me.Oniontree1 (talk) 19:05, September 13, 2015 (UTC) ::Having the year first is more conventional I prefer 'no spaces, no colons' - fewer keystrokes. However if it clarifies things (eg if the context makes YYYY DD MM format appropriate) some symbol may be necessary. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:15, September 13, 2015 (UTC) So for lists: *YYYY-YYYY AB Smith. *YYYY-YYYY February-March CD Jones *YYYY-YYYY April-December EF Smith Any particular preferences on the multiple terms of office? Jackiespeel (talk) 13:05, September 14, 2015 (UTC) :Okey dokey let's see... *There seems to be consensus on having no spaces around the hyphen which is fine with me. *Is it a hyphen or is it a dash? As the dashes are the sort of thing you have to use ALT+ and some numbers for (and the numbers at the side not the numbers at the top *sigh*) they are more likely to cause problems. So I suppose use the hyphen. *For some reason the colon makes sense to me but that is not based on anything objective so they can go away. *I think we need at least two digits as in 1900-01 rather than 1900-1. The latter looks peculiar (although again subjective). But perhaps the full four digits e.g. 1898-1901 is safest of all. *I love tables and find them handy for keeping things tidy plus the multiple colspan and rowspan can sometimes make a simple graphic explanation of a somewhat complicated issue. Like this extract from Alphabetical list of members of the London County Council, where the individual was in two different parties and had represented two different areas as well as being a non-geographical alderman over the years. :The multiple terms thing seems to have two solutions and one doesn't seem better than the other particularly, I just think we should be consistent. :It might be that *1921-1922 A N Other *1922-1923 A N Other (second term) *1923-1924 A N Other (third term) *1924-1925 A N Other (fourth term) :is clearer than: *1921-1925 A N Other (four terms) :but looks a bit pedantic. However, if A N Other went on to have a fifth term in, say 1930-1931, it might be less confusing. Really, I suppose, pick one and stick with it! Lozleader (talk) 14:10, September 14, 2015 (UTC) I prefer 'the dash off the keyboard', and have no particular preference on the laying out the terms of office (why I was getting a collective opinion)- though Wikipedia here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lord_Mayors_of_London runs them together (and having Henry Fitz-Ailwin de Londonestone 24 times might be a tad repetitive). Roughly what proportion of people serving more than 1 term of office serve more than 2-3 consecutive terms? (Election results are a slightly different case.) Jackiespeel (talk) 16:13, September 14, 2015 (UTC) Jackiespeel (talk) 16:13, September 14, 2015 (UTC) :As far as mayors are concerned there were quite a few who served multiple terms during either of the World Wars. Plucking two at random, at Hampstead, O'Bryen did six and Boyd did seven and at Lambeth, Gibbs did his 2nd-6th terms during WW1 while Lockyer did 8 in a row from 1938-45.Lozleader (talk) 16:53, September 14, 2015 (UTC) There is a case for following the Wikipedia example: but having the years individually listed makes the list more searchable. (I was going to add a comment on the wartime politicians as being a special case, but the sentence was getting too convoluted.) The main problem is that the case #is# so evenly balanced (unlike the 1901-2 arrangement, included for completness). Jackiespeel (talk) 17:05, September 14, 2015 (UTC)